Research exploring ways to improve the Disability Confident Employer Scheme in Wales

This was a collaborative social research project. A team of co-producers delivered the research including Chairs of the Disability Rights Taskforce working groups, Welsh Government social researchers, Welsh Government policy officers and a PhD student. The co-production team combined lived experience of being disabled by barriers with expertise in disability rights and social research (both academic and Government). 

This social research project would not have been possible without the dedicated time and extensive and insightful contributions made by the co-producers at each stage of the research from project scoping to publication of this report. 

Welsh Government would like to pay particular thanks to co-production team members from the Disability Rights Taskforce for sharing their personal and organisational assets, including lived experience of being disabled by barriers, their passion and ambition to address inequalities, their communications and interpersonal skills, and for reaching into their own expertise and understanding of the current and historical landscape for disabled people and tapping into their own networks. 

Disability Rights Taskforce members included:

• Professor Debbie Foster, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University. Chair of the Employment & Income Working Group and Co-Chair of the Welsh Government Disability Rights Taskforce
• Damian Joseph Bridgeman - disability activist, social entrepreneur, Councillor for Saint Athan Community, and Chair of the Housing Working Group of the Welsh Government Disability Rights Taskforce
• Dr Natasha Hirst, Chair of the Access to Services Working Group of the Welsh Government Disability Rights Taskforce
• Willow C Holloway, Chair of the Independent Living: Health Working Group of the Welsh Government Disability Rights Taskforce
• Joe Powell, Chief Executive Officer, All Wales People First and Chair of the Access to Justice Working Group of the Welsh Government Disability Rights Taskforce
• Ruth Nortey, PhD student, Cardiff University

DC

Disability Confident Employer Scheme

DPO

Disabled People’s Organisation

DRTF

Disability Rights Taskforce

DWP

Department of Work and Pensions

IG

Impairment Group

Co-producer

A member of the cross-sector team who worked together to prototype research co-production of a Government Social Research Report

GSR

Government Social Research

TUC

Trade Unions Cymru

DDEU

Disability Disparity Evidence Unit

ERDEU

Equality, Race and Disability Evidence Units

Research rationale

In September 2023, the Chairs of the Disability Rights Taskforce (DRTF) Working Groups agreed to collaborate with the Disability Disparity Evidence Unit (DDEU) with the aim of co-producing Government Social Research (GSR). The DRTF had previously identified a series of recommendations, one of which related to the Disability Confident Employer Scheme.

DRTF Working Group members recommended that the Disability Confident Employer Scheme needs improvement and increased engagement with existing avenues of support and advice from disabled people with lived experience. They proposed new ideas for the scheme, which included a distinct employer’s kitemark for Wales, an enhanced scheme with a Welsh element or to seek improvements to the current UK-wide scheme. 

This research aimed to further explore the DRTF Working Group recommendation relating to the Disability Confident Employer Scheme with a range of stakeholders and use a co-production approach. 

Disability Confident Employer Scheme

The Disability Confident Employer Scheme is a UK-wide scheme and is delivered by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). 

The scheme aims to ‘get more disabled people into employment and reduce the employment gap between disabled people and non-disabled people’. 

The scheme has three levels which employers are encouraged to move through to the highest level to achieve a Disability Confident Leader status kitemark. 

The scheme aims state that ‘being Disability Confident is an opportunity for employers to lead the way in their community and to discover skills and talents they cannot do without’. 

Latest figures relating to disabled people in employment

For the year ending June 2024 in Wales, there were 50.9% of disabled people in employment (aged 16 to 64) compared to 81.6% of non-disabled people. The employment rate gap for disabled people in the year ending June 2024 stood at 30.7 percentage points. 

In addition to this, in 2022 to 2023, disabled people or people with a limiting long-standing illness were more than twice as likely to live in a household in material deprivation than those who are not disabled. One in four disabled people or people with a limiting long-standing illness (25%) lived in a household in material deprivation compared with 11% of people who were not disabled.                                                

For disabled people in employment, the pay difference between disabled and non-disabled people in Wales was £1.75 (12.2%) in 2023. This means that disabled people in Wales earned, on average, £1.75 less per hour than non-disabled people.

Co-production approach

This research was a prototype for coproducing GSR. It set out to test if it is possible to coproduce this type of research, how much can be co-produced and to show it could be done in the future. 

The co-production team combined lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society with expert knowledge in disability rights and social research. The team included  DRTF Working Group Chairs, Welsh Government research and policy officials and a PhD student. 

The team’s goal was to learn how to produce research together. This would improve the quality and use of evidence which informs decisions affecting disabled people. 

Methodology

Three focus groups were held in July 2024 and were comprised of employers, trade unions and representatives from Disabled People’s Organisations (DPO’s) and impairment groups (IG’s). 

A DPO is defined as ‘an organisation led, directed, and governed by disabled people, with a commitment to the social model of disability and the promotion of human rights for disabled individuals’.

An IG can broadly be defined as ‘an organisation whose purpose is to further the interests of people with a specific impairment, which is not run and governed exclusively, or at all, by disabled people’.

The focus groups were facilitated and co-analysed by the co-production team. There were 25 focus group participants in total. In addition, 5 DRTF working group chairs and a PhD student acted as facilitators and co-facilitators and some fed into focus group discussions given that they brought lived experience and expertise.

Participants were chosen to represent a range of different experiences and knowledge of the Disability Confident Employer Scheme and employment issues affecting disabled people. 

The focus groups were held virtually to ensure the research was accessible. Focus group participants were offered alternative ways to provide their views if this was required. Focus group participants were provided with a list of discussion prompts in advance. 

The data collected is presented as insights about the current scheme and an exploration of the potential for alternative models that are more bespoke to meet the needs of disabled people and organisations in Wales. 

It should be acknowledged that this research did not aim to fully evaluate the current Disability Confident Employer Scheme, rather to explore the options discussed by the DRTF working group. The sample is not fully representative of all types of employers, and it did not include the views of the UK Government department who host the current scheme. 

The focus group approach offered the opportunity for rich and diverse insights into this topic. Participants brought a wealth of lived experience of being disabled by barriers and of engaging with the current Disability Confident Employer Scheme.

Context

Focus group discussions considered the broader context in which the current scheme operates as well as some of the employment barriers for disabled people. Participants reflected that disabled people are more likely to be in low paid, insecure employment that does not always accommodate flexible working. 

It was considered that some disabled people are further disadvantaged by the sector or contract they are employed under. Freelancers and disabled people on a zero-hour contract cannot always access trade union membership. 

Participants shared reflections that some people do not wish to identify as disabled due to stereotypes and potential negative preconceptions from others. Participants reflected that some disabled people and employers may not be fully aware of their rights and responsibilities under The Equality Act (2010). This lack of understanding particularly around reasonable adjustments was considered to present a challenge for employers to fully understand their workforce and make these available if required. 

Safe working environments where disabled people feel able to self-identify was considered to be essential. It was reflected that there were proposals for a requirement for disability pay gap reporting, which was seen as a positive step forward. However, it was noted that this would only be aimed at large scale employers and would rely on self-reporting which may be problematic.

Participant views about the current scheme 

There are three levels within the existing scheme that employers can achieve. Many participants agreed that the Level 3 leader status was valuable because achieving it required external assessment by another organisation that had already gained Level 3 status within the scheme. 

Many participants raised problems experienced with the current scheme, particularly at the lower levels which is discussed below. 

The concept of an interview guarantee for disabled candidates when applying for jobs was seen as an advantage. Although some participants had experience of this not being honoured. 

Participants reflected that displaying the Disability Confident scheme logo on job adverts could be advantageous to disabled people if it indicated certain minimum employment expectations would be met. However, whilst there was some confidence amongst participants that Level 3 employers might meet this expectation, there was less confidence in the lower-level employers. 

Participants across the three focus groups reflected that the lower levels (levels 1 and 2) of the current Disability Confident Employer Scheme were not considered challenging enough and represent a minimum standard. The lower levels were seen to not provide enough support and guidance for employers. It was thought that this leads to some employers not fully understanding what it is they have signed up to deliver. Participants felt there was a lack of understanding amongst employers of the barriers that disabled people face in the workplace and of the scheme itself. 

Research participants reflected this ‘minimum standard’ potentially gives a false sense of security to employers and disabled people seeking employment. 

DPO representatives reflected that some employers do not always have a clear understanding of the barriers faced by disabled people in the labour market and may think recruitment practices are fully accessible, however this is not always the case. 

The lower levels of the scheme were not considered robust enough as employers are required to self-assess at these levels and there is no external monitoring, evaluation or accreditation.

The current scheme was described by many participants as ‘a tick box exercise’, ‘not fit for purpose’ and compared unfavourably with other employer schemes. Other comparable schemes for people with different protected characteristics for example LGBTQ+ specific schemes were viewed as more effective, challenging and robust. It was also reflected that people with lived experience were typically involved in the establishment, management and evaluation of these schemes. 

It was reflected that there is a lack of emphasis on engaging with people with lived experience to seek feedback regarding how well the scheme was currently working for them. This was seen as essential as disabled people are the assumed beneficiaries.

Employers that participated in the research highlighted their desire for continuous learning and improvement. Some employers reflected the current scheme guidance focused on actions they had already taken. 

Participants reflected that funding and support given to employers was sometimes variable. Some employers provided examples of good support from the DWP in some geographic areas, whilst others reported they found support more difficult to access. 

Some participants highlighted ‘horrid’ experiences in employment that disabled people had faced historically. The lack of follow up for employers who are part of the scheme means that some are not currently held accountable which can lead to repeat bad experiences for disabled people in the workforce. 

Stakeholder suggestions on how to improve the current scheme

Focus group participants shared suggestions on how to improve the current scheme which included: 

• increasing resource such as staff, funding and capacity amongst stakeholders to address the problems identified by the research and ensuring improvements were sustained and meaningful
• one example proposed was DPO's could be provided with additional resources to work more directly with employers to provide advice and guidance
• robust and regular monitoring of progress against agreed and measurable benchmarks across all levels to increase confidence and to demonstrate improved outcomes for disabled people in the workforce
• independent evaluation at all levels where people with lived experience could potentially play a role, given they are the assumed beneficiaries of the scheme
• it was suggested that DPO’s could potentially form an advisory board with Welsh Government and build on the work of the Disability Champions to undertake evaluation activity
• increased opportunities for shared learning amongst stakeholders
• increased engagement at a regional level between DPOs, third sector organisations, employers and trade unions

One of the fundamental principles of any improvement identified was engaging with disabled people with lived experience. Employers need to understand fully what the barriers are for disabled people, and what good practice looks like. It was deemed to be necessary for the current scheme to set higher aspirations for change across all levels. 

Trade Union representatives reflected they would like greater involvement in a future scheme. Their network of workplace union representatives was considered a potential source of support and education for both employers and disabled people.

Current legislation was seen as a structural obstacle. It was reflected by trade union participants that legislation often focuses more on individual disability discrimination cases as opposed to addressing barriers across sectors. Participants shared ambitions for stakeholders to be working together more in the future to collectively identify solutions. Participants across the focus groups reflected there was a need for a stronger reporting procedure to ensure employer accountability and integrity. 

Participants reflected on the role of the DWP, given that the current scheme ownership resides with them. It was deemed that trust and relationships would need to improve to allow for collaboration to make improvements. However, participants raised that if effective collaboration between the DWP and stakeholders is not possible, alternative hosting arrangements for the scheme could be a better option. 

It was suggested that Welsh Government could potentially play more of an active role in either a future scheme or a revised scheme. This potentially would enable local networks of stakeholders to work collaboratively. This led to further debate regarding the potential advantages and challenges of a bespoke Welsh employer scheme as discussed below. 

Potential advantages and challenges of a Welsh scheme or a devolved element within a national scheme 

Evidence from the research suggests mixed support for a new Welsh scheme or a devolved element within a UK-wide scheme. This could form part of any devolved responsibilities to ensure the scheme takes account of regional needs and allows for greater community involvement. Consideration was given to both potential advantages and challenges associated with this. 

One potential advantage of devolving some or all of the Disability Confident scheme to Wales, raised by focus group participants, included establishing a specific forum of leaders in Wales. It was deemed that this forum could have the benefit of raising aspiration and provide leaders with a local network to challenge each other and share good practice.  It was suggested that this could include working collaboratively with DPOs, IGs and trade unions.

There was recognition that a Welsh dimension to an employer’s scheme could better integrate Welsh speakers and promote the use of the Welsh language. A scheme that took account of a Welsh specific dimension could potentially better understand the regional patterns of employment as well as economic barriers faced by disabled people. 

Some participants highlighted concern that few employers in Wales had achieved Level 3 leader status to date. Localised support was therefore seen as a potential way to increase the numbers of employers in Wales in both the private and public sector achieving leader status. 

Some disabled people and DPOs felt that levels of trust with Welsh Government were higher than that with the UK Government. It was also considered that having a bespoke Welsh element could provide a new opportunity for a ‘cultural shift’. It was reflected by one participant that this would offer the opportunity to reform from the ground up and work co-productively with disabled people. 

It was suggested this could incorporate a complete re-brand of the scheme that was not aligned to the DWP to ensure greater confidence and trust in the scheme. 

It was suggested that a bespoke Welsh element could potentially align to the public procurement process in Wales which might be used as leverage to engage more employers. For example, a minimum quality standard could be set to ensure any employers bidding for public sector contracts would have to demonstrate in practice. 

The potential challenges that were highlighted included practical issues such as funding and capacity. Participants raised that greater investment would be needed in Wales to enhance stakeholder capacity particularly for DPO’s and IGs. 

It was also suggested that having a bespoke Welsh scheme sitting alongside a UK national employer scheme might cause some confusion, particularly for employers that operate across the UK. 

Some participants questioned how feasible this was to deliver in real terms. Some participants felt that efforts could be better spent trying to improve or build upon the existing scheme as opposed to potentially diverting resources away from it. 

Overall, participants felt there were clear opportunities and potential advantages of a bespoke Welsh scheme, and alternatively there was also strong support for increasing available resources and making improvements to the current scheme as opposed to developing something new.

In July 2021, the Locked out: liberating disabled people’s lives and rights in Wales beyond COVID-19 report highlighted the inequalities experienced by disabled people in society. One of the Welsh Government’s responses to the report was to set up the Disability Rights Taskforce, a partnership between Welsh Government and disabled people. The Taskforce operated on the principle of co-production, with more than 200 Welsh Government policy officials and 350 external stakeholders working together to develop recommendations, aimed at improving outcomes for all disabled people in Wales. These recommendations have been used to inform the outcomes and actions of the Disabled People’s Rights Plan.

In September 2023, the DRTF agreed to collaborate with the Equality, Race and Disability Evidence Units (ERDEU) with the aim of co-producing GSR informed by lived experience. It would test the extent to which GSR can be coproduced, working together to navigate barriers and embrace enablers for change.

The research aimed to test an alternative way of conducting research alongside representatives of disabled people and in line with the principles of the social model of disability. A ‘co-producer’ is identified as a member of the cross-sector team who worked together to prototype co-production of a GSR report.

The research aimed to enable delivery of the ERDEU’s mission, ‘to improve the availability, quality, granularity and accessibility of evidence about individuals with protected and associated characteristics so that we fully understand the level and types of inequalities in Wales.’

The ambition, as part of contributing to a more equal Wales, was to enable decision makers to develop better informed policies and drive better outcomes for people. 

The research was intended to strengthen the legacy of the DRTF through further exploring the recommendations. Two recommendations were selected by DRTF Chairs for researching, including one from the Employment and Income Group which is the focus of this report.

This section includes a summary of the main discussion points from the DRTF ‘Employment and Income Working Group’ which met six times between March and December 2023. The working group consisted of disabled people and organisations representing them, Welsh Government policy officials, trade union representatives, employers and academics. Recommendations were co-created by the working group and then presented to the full DRTF. The Minister responsible for employment attended the final meeting. 

The working group meetings explored a range of barriers faced by disabled people relating to employment and income. Disabled people shared their lived experiences of trying to access and remain in employment. Themes that emerged from these experiences included poor employer understanding of The Equalities Act (2010), particularly the duty to make reasonable adjustments. Low provision of flexible working arrangements, a lack of tailored support and training, inflexible job design and negative attitudes towards disabled people were also discussed. A reluctance to self-identify as disabled because of fear, discrimination and a poor understanding of workplace rights were experiences voiced by many disabled participants. 

Two existing government initiatives were discussed by the working group: the UK Government Access to Work Scheme and its Disability Confident Employer Scheme. In relation to the Disability Confident Employer Scheme working group members felt that, in its current form, the scheme lacked credibility and needed reform. 

Working group members agreed that in principle, an employer scheme that resulted in better employment practices for disabled people was a good idea. However, many disabled people had little confidence that the current Disability Confident scheme achieved this. 

The scheme has 3 levels. Levels 1 and 2 are viewed as neither ‘fit for purpose’ or ‘challenging’. Both can also be achieved by employer self-assessment rather than external inspection and accreditation. Level 3 is regarded as more comprehensive and requires significantly more work for employers. Evaluation and inspection are an element, although these are undertaken by another Level 3 organisation within the scheme, not an independent body that had the confidence of all disabled people. The lack of effort required by employers to achieve Level 1 of the scheme was viewed as particularly patronising and self-defeating. Level 3 by contrast demands greater commitment from employers, but it was noted currently only 40 employers in Wales have achieved Level 3 Disability Confident Leadership status, just 12 in the private sector. It should be stated that these figures may have increased since the original recommendation was made. 

Working group members suggested that the current Disability Confident scheme needs to be more rigorous, involve more disabled people and organisations representing them in evaluations and demonstrate tangible benefits for disabled people. They proposed new ideas to improve the scheme, such as a distinct employer’s kitemark for Wales, an enhanced scheme with a Welsh element, or to seek improvements to the current UK-wide scheme. There were concerns expressed by some that there were currently no dedicated resources at regional level to improve the scheme in this way, and for it to be robust, these would be needed. The potential possibilities and limitations of reforming the current Disability Confident Employer Scheme formed the basis for this research project. 

I would like to thank all members of the Working Group whose contributions and ideas inspired this research.

For the year ending June 2024 in Wales, there were 50.9% of disabled people in employment (aged 16 to 64) compared to 81.6% of non-disabled people. The employment rate gap for disabled people in the year ending June 2024 stood at 30.7 percentage points. 

In addition to this, in 2022 to 2023, disabled people or people with a limiting long-standing illness were more than twice as likely to live in a household in material deprivation than those who are not disabled. One in four disabled people or people with a limiting long-standing illness (25%) lived in a household in material deprivation compared with 11% of people who were not disabled.       

For disabled people in employment, the pay difference between disabled and non-disabled people in Wales was £1.75 (12.2%) in 2023. This means that disabled people in Wales earned, on average, £1.75 less per hour than non-disabled people.

The research aim was to further explore the DRTF Working Group recommendations, relating to the Disability Confident Employer Scheme as described above with a range of stakeholders. Three focus groups were held with employers, trade unions and representatives from DPO’s and IG’s. 

A DPO is defined as ‘as an organisation led, directed, and governed by disabled people, with a commitment to the social model of disability and the promotion of human rights for disabled individuals’.

An IG can broadly be defined as ‘an organisation whose purpose is to further the interests of people with a specific impairment, which is not run and governed exclusively or at all, by disabled people. Some IG’s were established to address the perceived problems associated with having a medical condition and use a medical model of disability. Some IG’s do acknowledge the benefits of a social model.     

Focus Group discussion themes were co-designed with the aim of exploring how the existing Disability Confident Employer Scheme could be improved upon and what delivery models might be useful. The research questions were:

• what might each of the following three options look like?
  • to develop a distinct Welsh employer kitemark?
  • to enhance the current scheme with a Welsh element to it?
  • to influence the incoming UK Government to change the UK-wide scheme?

The research team agreed it was important to consider:

• compared to the existing scheme, what are the relative benefits and disbenefits for each?
• what are the potential economic costs and benefits for disabled people, employers and the wider economy?
• what are the challenges and opportunities for implementation?

Focus Group discussions were co-facilitated and were allowed to flow to tap into areas of greatest interest and experience of participants. The data collected was themed and is presented as insights about the current scheme and exploration of the potential for alternative models that are more bespoke to meet the needs of disabled people and organisations in Wales. This includes:

• experiences of the current Disability Confident Employer Scheme and stakeholder views on how to improve the current scheme
• potential obstacles to reforming the current scheme
• the creation of a standalone Welsh employer scheme for Wales or a devolved element within a UK national scheme and potential benefits and challenges of this
• employment problems experienced by disabled people that a scheme would need to address in the future

Research participants brought a wealth of knowledge and experience regarding the scheme and issues disabled people face in employment. However, it should be acknowledged that this is a limited piece of research which did not aim to fully evaluate the current scheme, rather to further explore the options discussed by the DRTF working group. The sample is not fully representative of all types of employers, and it did not include the views of the UK Government department responsible for hosting the current scheme. The methodology section of this report outlines the research methods in further detail, including any methodological limitations.

The disabled people’s employment policy landscape in Wales is complex. Employment legislation is reserved to the UK Government which means Welsh Government levers are largely limited to working in social partnership with employers and trade unions to change cultures and behaviours, amplifying good practice, and using their relationships to promote the social model of disability.                         

Recent changes at a UK and devolved level however could help deliver further change. This includes: 

• an Employment Rights Bill and an anticipated Equality (Race and Disability) Bill and a strengthened relationship with DWP, to work more collaboratively to exploit an increasingly aligned policy perspective
• Welsh Government’s commitment to adopting a co-production approach and using lived experience to inform policy development, notably through the DRTF and the establishment of the DDEU, presents valuable opportunities to strengthen Welsh Government’s disabled people’s employment policy
• the establishment of a permanent team of Disabled People’s Employment Champions improves Welsh Government’s capacity to work strategically with partners and employers to improve the employment prospects of disabled people.

The Welsh Government currently employs a team of five Disabled People’s Employment Champions.

The Champions support delivery of the Welsh Government’s ambition to improve employment outcomes for disabled people as set out in the Welsh Government’s: 

• Programme for Government Commitment to use the new network of Disabled People’s Employment Champions to help close the gap between disabled people and the rest of the working population
• National Milestone for the elimination of the pay gap for gender, disability and ethnicity by 2050
• Employability and Skills Plan
• Fair Work agenda

A role of the Champions is to engage with large employers, employer representative organisations and trade unions, with the aim of promoting the recruitment and retention of disabled people, raising awareness of the social model of disability, promoting the Disability Confident Scheme and improving disabled people’s experience of work and career prospects.

Their work complements that of the Business Wales Disabled People’s Employment Advisers who undertake a similar role focussing on business start-ups and small to medium size enterprises (SMEs). 

With over 250,000 active enterprises in Wales, the Champions focus their time and efforts on ‘one-to-many’ relationships, rather than ‘one-to-one’ relationships with individual employers. This is achieved by working with employer representative bodies, public sector organisations and social partnerships.

Fair work

Equality, diversity and inclusion is integral to Welsh Government’s fair work agenda. The Welsh Government is delivering a range of activity in this area that will have a positive impact over the longer-term on the employment opportunities and outcomes for disabled people and others with protected characteristics. This includes: 

• information, advice and guidance for employers: working in social partnership to drive changes in cultures and behaviours, and to raise awareness and understanding of fair work and the benefits of a diverse workforce
• information, advice and guidance for workers: raising awareness of workplace rights, building on previous campaigns by developing on-line resources that provide advice, guidance and signposting to expert services
• engaging the UK Government on reserved workers’ rights and calling for additional protections and more effective enforcement
• promoting trade union access and membership as a means of protecting the rights of disabled workers
• increasing ambition to improve the reach and impact of the Economic Contract and our Code of Practice on Ethical Employment in Supply Chains

Support for individuals to enter and progress in work, as well as targeted support for disabled people is set out in "Stronger, fairer, greener Wales: a plan for employability and skills”. This includes a range of employability programmes.                         

Over recent months, work has begun to develop an Employability Support Programme that will bring employability programmes (ReAct +, Jobs Growth Wales + and Communities for Work) together. Over the coming months, the Welsh Government will engage with partners on the new Employability Support Programme and its interface with other employability programmes being delivered in Wales. 

Since this work began, the UK Government has indicated its intention to devolve non-Jobcentre Plus employment support funding to the Welsh Government so it can shape a joined-up work, health, and skills offer for local people, including those with protected characteristics. Welsh Government Officials are currently working with DWP officials to inform the delivery focus of the proposed DWP Trailblazer programme, (focussed on economic inactivity). This positive joint work between officials will ensure the programme embraces innovative approaches when supporting people back to the workplace.

Although UK Government has committed to devolving all non-job centre plus employment support to Wales, officials are in very early discussions about what that could mean for Wales.

This chapter sets out the methods and research activity undertaken.

Three focus groups were held in July 2024 and were facilitated by the co-production team which included disabled people who were members of the DRTF and Welsh Government Officials. 

There were 25 focus group participants. Participants were made up of employers (9 participants), trade union representatives (5 participants), DPO representatives and IG representatives (combined 11 participants). The original intention was to invite 10 to 12 participants per focus group. In addition, 5 DRTF working group chairs and a PhD student acted as facilitators and co-facilitators and some fed into focus group discussions given that they brought lived experience and expertise.

A purposive sampling approach was taken to intentionally select participants with specific characteristics and unique experiences related to the research questions. Selected participants represented a wealth of experience and knowledge of the Disability Confident Employer Scheme and issues affecting disabled people and employment. 

Contacts for Welsh employers were extracted from the publicly available database of the Disability Confident Employer Scheme. Welsh Government researchers worked with a disability champion to purposely sample employers with a range of experiences and views based on their status. Invitations were also sent to members of the Trade Unions Cymru (TUC) Equalities Group via the group secretary. Additionally, members of the co-production team reached out to known union representatives. For DPO’s and IG’s, a list of participants from DRTF working groups was used to identify potential participants. This worked well to circulate the invite to organisations representing disabled people with a range of impairments. 

The focus groups were held virtually to enable people from across Wales to participate. Participants were asked to state any accessibility requirements in advance. Participants were also provided with the agreed topic guide in advance. Focus groups were facilitated by the Chair of the DRTF Employment and Income Working Group who is also an academic expert in this topic and co-facilitated by other DRTF chairs in the team.

The topic guide was co-produced by the co-production team and the research questions were as follows: 

• what might each of the following three options look like?
• to develop a distinct Welsh employer kitemark?
• to enhance the current scheme with a Welsh element to it?
• to influence the incoming UK Government to change the UK-wide scheme?
• compared to the existing scheme, what are the relative benefits and disbenefits for each?
• what are the potential economic costs and benefits for disabled people, employers and the wider economy?
• what are the challenges and opportunities for implementation?

An unstructured approach was taken which allowed for focus group discussion to flow to tap into areas of greatest interest and experience of participants. A focus group is a commonly used research method to elicit qualitative data and allow for in-depth exploration of an agreed topic. As stated in The Magenta Book, this research method allows the facilitator some flexibility to probe and more time to explore the views of participants. A focus group also helps to understand not just ‘what’ has worked but ‘why’ and ‘how’ an intervention has been experienced the way it has.

There can be a risk of bias with this method, for example some stakeholders may be more or less willing to participate in a focus group than others. Focus groups also need careful moderation to ensure all participants have equal opportunity to communicate their views. Some participants had been previously involved in the DRTF working group, so will have had some involvement in the development of the original recommendation. 

Focus group facilitators were disabled people who were members of the co-production team and had a clear understanding of the issues being discussed. Government Social Researchers quality assured the topic guide to ensure that GSR standards were adhered to throughout. 

There is an additional methodological limitation to using focus groups. The sample is not a representative sample. However, what this research method offers is often rich and diverse insights into a particular topic, allowing for collective and diverse views to be explored in detail. These views have been presented in this report.

Captions were recorded so a transcript could be produced for each focus group. The data collected was anonymised by a Welsh Government researcher and then shared with a member of the co-production team who acted as a ‘co-analyser’ before sharing initial findings with the wider co-production team. 

Thematic analysis was undertaken, and the researcher followed the six steps of systematic thematic analysis as described by Naeem et al (2003) which were developed by Braun & Clarke’s technique (2008).

The six steps

Step 1

Initial phase where researchers dive deep into the data and select quotes that bring the data to life and reflect the research questions and options.

Step 2

Involves examining the quotes and picking out keywords that reflect them.

Step 3

Researchers then simplify the keywords by converting raw data into insightful, manageable units.

Step 4

Codes are then organised into meaningful groups to identify patterns linking to research questions.

Step 5

Involves understanding and defining concepts emerging form the data.

Step 6

Researchers create a unique representation of the data, guided often by existing theories or themes, answering the research questions and is the culmination of the analysis.

This step approach was undertaken by a Welsh Government researcher and was replicated by a second Welsh Government researcher to sense check developing themes before sharing and comparing themes with the co-analyser. 

It was initially anticipated that the research would be co-designed with the DRTF Chairs and delivered by Welsh Government Social Researchers. However, the ambitions of DRTF Chairs to be more fully involved resulted in a co-productive approach and a co-production team was formed. 

The research has aimed to be delivered in line with the principles of the social model of disability and active steps were taken to meet the range of accessibility needs of the co-producers. The co-production team set out to work collaboratively to ensure disabled people’s voices were ‘a golden thread’ throughout each stage of the research. The extent to which co-production was achieved will be evaluated at the end of the project. Co-production is an iterative process, and the research design shifted and changed during the project. There were some elements of the research design that were not taken forward as they were beyond the resources available in the timescale for this research project. This included undertaking a full-scale literature review, a deliberative workshop with stakeholders and collecting stories from disabled people from different communities during the fieldwork. This also limited the extent to which the research findings could be triangulated with additional evidence sources. This is an acknowledged methodological limitation of this research.

The co-production team were involved at each stage of the research as set out below in more detail.

Scoping stage: This involved facilitating co-production team workshops to better understand the rationale for the DRTF Working Group recommendation and develop initial research questions to form the topic guide. Evidence reviewing and a policy context workshop with Welsh Government Officials were also undertaken during this stage. 

Co-planning stage: This involved agreeing a focus group as the primary research method, co-designing topic guides, pooling contacts and efforts to recruit participants. A workshop session was held to co-design the co-facilitation approach in advance. 

Fieldwork stage: As noted above, this involved three co-facilitated focus groups with employers, trade union representatives and DPO / IG representatives. 

Co-analysis stage: A Welsh Government researcher transcribed and anonymised the raw data before undertaking thematic analysis. This theming process was also undertaken independently by an academic social researcher before comparing and agreeing themes. 

Reporting stage: The report was drafted by a Welsh Government researcher and quality assured against GSR standards. The draft report was shared with the co-production team for comment before final revisions. The co-production team provided advice and steer regarding accessible formats and highlighted the need to quality assure any outputs to check for adherence to social model of disability language.  

Remuneration was offered as in-kind contributions of facilitation training and masterclass events by well-regarded disability rights activists.

Focus group participants, which included employers, trade unions, DPO’s and IG representatives reflected on advantages of, and problems experienced with the scheme.

Within focus group discussions, there was recognition from some participants that independent assessment and scrutiny at Level 3: Leader status ensured that organisations had to report on actions they had implemented, and this was seen as a positive aspect of the current scheme which held organisations accountable. 

One participant reflected that the concept of an interview guarantee was a positive element:

I know personally from some of my disabled friends they have been pleased with the requirements to interview disabled candidates who meet all the essential criteria. I think that is a useful element of it. But I think it's more of some useful elements in an overall scheme that isn't properly monitored. (DPO group participant)

However, some participants had experience of this not being honoured. 

Participants reflected that displaying the Disability Confident scheme logo on job adverts could be advantageous to disabled people if it indicated certain minimum employment expectations would be met. However, whilst there was some confidence amongst participants that Level 3 employers might meet this expectation, there was less confidence in the lower-level employers.

Evidence regarding problems experienced with the current scheme is detailed below. There was more evidence provided relating to problems experienced with the current scheme as opposed to advantages. 

Levels 1 and 2 were not considered robust enough by many participants. This was due to the requirement for employers to self-assess any progress and a lack of external monitoring and rigorous accreditation throughout the process. One participant reflected it was like employers ‘marking their own homework’. Levels 1 and 2 were criticised for not being challenging enough and set a low standard of expectation for employers. The current scheme was described by many participants as ‘a tick box exercise’ and ‘not fit for purpose’. 

We actually felt that there was no value to level 1 or level 2 because you evaluated yourself. (Employers group participant)

Level 3 employers that participated in the research voiced the opinion that the scheme largely accredited actions they had already undertaken, and the scheme needed to be more ambitious to support employers at all levels by providing more opportunities for further learning and development. Participants from some of the IG’s, reflected that some employers at Level 3 had ‘splintered off and created a new framework’ as the current scheme was not working well enough for them. This was because the current scheme was deemed to not provide enough specialist support. 

And we definitely found that it's not necessarily fit for purpose for the communities we serve, and we went well beyond the requirements in that area. And so, I think we had a conversation internally about, you know, how does this actually work for us?. (IG group participant)

Participants reflected the lower levels of the current scheme represented a ‘minimum standard’ for employers to achieve easily. This potentially gives a false sense of security for disabled people in terms of assuming that appropriate health and safety measures and reasonable adjustments are already in the workplace.

Think it takes about half an hour to fill out the form as well online for level 1 which is really quite worrying, and it's quite patronising to disabled people, isn't it. That’s all you have to do. (IG group participant)

There were several comparisons made with other employment schemes for other groups with protected characteristics. Disability Confident was compared unfavourably in terms of the overall scheme aims, objectives and the monitoring of outcomes and progress made.

There was a view among some participants that awareness about the current scheme and its objectives were poorly understood by some amongst employers and disabled people.

Do people even know about it? You know, if you're kind of in that world, or if you're a disabled person, you might be aware of Disability Confident but what does it actually mean to somebody trying to access that organisation for services or employment?. (Employers group participant)

DPO representatives reflected that some employers may have some understanding of barriers for disabled people accessing employment and may think recruitment practices are fully accessible, but this is not always the case. There is a need for a better understanding of the scheme itself but also the barriers disabled people face when accessing employment. 

Some participants highlighted ‘horrid’ experiences in employment that disabled people had faced historically. The lack of follow up for employers means that some are not currently held accountable or required to make any changes in a work environment which can lead to repeat bad experiences. (DPO’s/IG’s group representative)            

It was also reflected there is a lack of emphasis on engaging with people who have lived experience for feedback. 

What's really concerning for me is that lack of emphasis on people who take part in the scheme to get feedback from actual disabled people that they employ. You know it's all well and good to kind of have a monitoring and review system. But if that doesn't actually get the views of people employed within that workplace. (IG focus group representative)

Employers expressed views that they would welcome more engagement and learning. The current scheme does not provide enough support and guidance for employers to ensure they understand what it is they have signed up for to deliver it well. This can further exacerbate lack of understanding of the scheme itself and barriers that disabled people experience in the workplace. 

We're a Disability Confident employer and I guess for us the purpose of doing it was because whilst we believe that we do inclusive employment really well, we were looking for well, what else could we do? So, we consult with our disabled employees, we make sure that we provide what is needed and we were hoping that Disability Confident might give us some kind of further tools and support to do that even better. And we were disappointed with that which is why we didn't go any further with it. (DPO group participant)

The issue of funding and dedicated resource that is required to facilitate a scheme such as Disability Confident was highlighted. It was reflected by one participant there is an over reliance on the third sector to deliver advice. It was suggested there should be a statutory duty across different sectors to involve representatives of disabled people to remove barriers for disabled people. 

Participants reflected that for some employers who are signed up to the scheme, there is real ambition to ensure inclusive employment, however the current scheme is not seen to provide that additional layer of support needed to move employers through the levels. Participants with relevant experience such as organisations representing disabled people and trade unions reflected that they could play more of a specific role in the current and/or a future scheme. One of the advantages of this would be to ensure employers understand fully the challenges that disabled people face. This will be discussed further in this report.

In addition to reflections on the current Disability Confident Employer Scheme, there were discussions amongst participants regarding any obstacles to reforming the current scheme.

One obstacle reflected on by participants across the three focus groups was stakeholder capacity. DPO’s particularly reflected they currently have limited capacity to get involved in the current or any future scheme and would require additional financial resources.

How many DPO’s are there in Wales? Less than 30, maybe, as far as we know. And that was the last thing that I was quoted. I know Organisation X is having a push to develop the role of DPO’s. But we certainly haven't got any capacity. We spend a lot of time supporting people who are in employment, who are being discriminated against where the employer is trying to get rid of them. (DPO group participant)

The requirement of support was discussed. DPO’s would need to develop the necessary infrastructure to ensure employers were supported with relevant policies and procedures that were well governed to maintain quality standards. 

 I really think, in terms of funding DPO’s, I think we're going to see less of that, not more. I really think there's going to be absolutely no chance of any DPO being funded to deliver anything like this. (DPO group participant)

You would need to have enough money to actually pay salaries before you even start undertaking an evaluative activity. So even though that might be an income stream for you, you have to be able to pay the staff to be employed within your organisation. (DPO’s group participant)

A ‘shared purpose’ between different groups of stakeholders who have common interests would be needed.

Participants reflected on the poor relationship between the DWP, with some disabled people and DPO’s. Some participants shared concerns regarding a lack of trust which was based on and referred to how disabled people felt they have been viewed and treated historically.

Disabled people in general just no longer have any trust at all. And it goes beyond that to becoming a fear of the DWP. So, if you've got that on one hand, you're not going to, then have the confidence and trust in a scheme that's run by that organisation. (Trade union group participant)

Yeah, with regard to the DWP elements. I can't answer for my organisation. But as somebody who identifies as and is married to a disabled person. Yeah, I think you know, given the concerns that our communities have with the DWP, that would make sense definitely. (Employers group participant)

However, it was also reflected by some participants that the DWP had taken an active role in their local area by encouraging employers to move towards Level 3. And therefore, the success of the scheme was often dependent on the extent of the relationship between stakeholders locally and their DWP officers.

And it was that process, combination of all 3, I guess the access officer, the supported business and the learning disability champions that really led to us going down a Disability Leader status. And I have to say it was through DWP that that happened. And I have to say, they are really active in West Wales. So DWP is really active in championing Disability Confident in West Wales. We would not have become a Disability Confident Leader if it wasn’t for a DWP event that both our head of HR And our CEO were at where they were told by our disability champions that they should be Disability Confident Leader. (Employers group participant)

Therefore, the establishment of greater trust between stakeholders and the DWP was deemed as crucial to overcoming obstacles to reforming the current scheme.

It was reflected that the recent change in the UK Government may present new opportunities for stakeholders to engage and work more closely with the DWP in the future. Participants felt this could include engaging with disabled people and working co-productively, similar to that demonstrated by the Welsh and Scottish Governments.

The role of trade unions was discussed in relation to supporting disabled people in the workplace. It was noted that some disabled people may feel ‘missing in action’ when it came to trade unions, simply because many are not in the labour market.

It was reflected that trade unions have little involvement in the current scheme. However, it was positively acknowledged that trade unions can (and should) have a role in improving and supporting organisational work around disability in the future.

But it's about the campaign around what we do and making sure those in our communities do have a voice but disability rights is right at the heart of that work that we do. (Trade union group participant)

There was recognition that trade unions could be working much more collaboratively with DPO’s. However, as with DPO’s, capacity and funding would be required for trade unions to play more of a role. 

In 2013, we negotiated that there would be a trade union equality rep coordinator. And then by 2015, the funding for that post had gone. (Trade union group participant)

Current legislation was seen as a structural obstacle. It was reflected by participants that legislation often focuses more on individual disability discrimination cases as opposed to addressing barriers across sectors. Participants shared ambitions for stakeholders to be working together more in the future to collectively identify solutions.

One participant reflected that they were experiencing a current disability employment dispute and had received positive support and encouragement from their local union branch.  However, as there was limited funding at a regional level, the union was reluctant to try and test the case and support with legal costs to take the case forward.

I found that quite depressing. Because I'd been a Union member all my life. And when it came to me being discriminated against in the workplace, and it was around reasonable adjustments and a failure to make reasonable adjustments, I felt like my union wasn't there for me. And I think that this does get repeated by quite a lot of disabled people who’ve had experiences in the workplace. (Trade Unions group participant)

It was reflected that this issue can arise where there can be particularly high thresholds set to decide which cases are taken on due to a low chance of winning. It was noted by one participant that some unions would not want to be seen to be losing discrimination cases as they could ‘potentially lose their ‘clout’ in the future.

It would be interesting to see how many of these big leaders who employ lots of people, how many disability discrimination cases they've had to deal with. Because that will give a true picture as to whether this kite mark makes any difference at all. (Group participant)

Participants from the trade unions focus group reflected there are current discussions happening regarding this issue of law and a renewed commitment by trade unions to review the thresholds to take cases forward in the future.

Whilst a theme that emerged from the data was participants reflecting on the current employer scheme and experiences of this, participants also reflected on how to improve the Disability Confident scheme in the future.

There was strong support to improve and strengthen the current scheme, to maximise engagement and make improvements to move the scheme away (particularly at Levels 1 and 2) from being seen as ‘a tick box exercise’.

The importance of disabled people’s lived experiences being at the centre of an enhanced scheme and ensuring a broad cultural change, was strongly reflected by participants.

So I think it's really important if a scheme is going to be reviewed, or a new scheme developed that people with lived experience from across different disabilities are involved in that, and they are really listened to. And what they're saying is heard. (DPO group participant)

It was discussed that additional resources are required to strengthen the scheme to address problems identified. Specific resources that were noted were increased staff capacity and funding. This was acknowledged by participants as an essential feature of any changes to ensure they were meaningful and sustained.

It was reflected by participants that regular monitoring of progress against a quality standard was needed across all levels of the scheme and would be a positive step forward.

What we need to do is give more value to Disability Confident and that it is measured, I think, if it was measured more and we had social value running alongside measuring you know of how effective this is as a tool. I think we'd see the cost benefits analysis of it. (Employers group participant)

Many participants reflected that there was a need for quality assurance and independent evaluation of the current scheme. It was suggested that people with lived experience could play a role in the future, given that they are the assumed beneficiaries.

The role of DPO’s was discussed and participants reflected they potentially could be involved at different stages of the accreditation process to provide independent scrutiny but highlighted a barrier to this.

I think DPO’s need to be involved as much as they can, really. But again, it is a funding issue we know that. (DPO group participant)

Participants from DPO’s reflected that one of the aims of the scheme should be to educate and work with employers to ensure they have a better understanding of the social model of disability and barriers faced by disabled people in employment.

Trade Unions and DPO’s reflected that they could play more of a role in the current and/or any future scheme, for example, facilitating an equalities staff network.

Participants identified opportunities for shared learning and collaboration to improve the current scheme. The need for diverse engagement of employers, trade unions and DPO’s was seen as a fundamental part for any improvements made to share learning and increase numbers of employers getting to Level 3. This would also potentially serve as an opportunity to increase aspiration for the scheme overall.

In the shorter term, while we're looking to develop, we should increase the number of leaders to create a forum of leaders that can share their practice, they can challenge each other, they can see how it's being done, and it also becomes aspirational for other organisations that want to be part of what they see to be the highest level of Disability Confident. So that it becomes more aspirational than just something that other people may choose to do. Perhaps that could involve DPO’s as well, and also obviously, trade unions. (Trade union group participant)

Some employers who had already reached Level 3 reflected that they would welcome future opportunities to learn and engage more collaboratively. The role of disability champions was specifically mentioned:

So, I was thinking of something like an advisory panel made up of the DPO’s but funded by Welsh government. That would then go out, not necessarily, all of them at the same time, but go out as a group and do these evaluations. Using the disability champions, and then having a small team that that you could discuss and then advise employers. And have a contact where if employees need advice, they can come to the group of people for help or support, or whatever they need. (IG group participant)

Another issue that was highlighted was the potential for trade unions to support with ‘collective bargaining’ to highlight issues amongst employers. Some trade unions had some success with broader campaigns around issues such as menopause, however it was noted some employers took this more seriously than others.

The use of incentives was discussed as something that could potentially encourage more employers to sign up and engage with the scheme.

I think incentives are great. And the project that I run, and you may remember, but we had European funding, and what we did was we paid the wages of the person that was going into employment and to be trained to a standard. So, when the employer took over the wages they were hitting the ground running with everything and that worked fantastically. It wasn't [just] the employer that got something out of it, because he [sic] got 10 weeks or 12 weeks, whatever it was. In the sense of like that individual, he [sic] didn't have to pay it but then he also gained by having the person already trained up to do the job once he then was taking them on as an employee. (IG group participant)

Some participants reflected that a fundamental principle should be to co-produce any improvements to the current scheme with stakeholders that include disabled people with lived experience.

One of the challenges identified was the need for additional support and government backing.

You almost need a government body behind it to give it the weight that it needs. But it also shouldn't be something that's forced on people as well. I do agree that the standardisation of the accreditation is really important to make it accessible to everybody. (Employers group participant)

One suggestion raised was the current scheme could remain at the UK level but there could be a devolved responsibility for implementation to ensure Welsh Government could be involved in the delivery in partnership with stakeholders locally with vested interests.

Consideration of the above stakeholder suggestions to make improvements was often discussed in parallel with the requirement of a broad cultural shift. It was reflected that there is a need for a ‘shared purpose’ between different stakeholders to ensure any scheme meaningfully impacts on disabled people’s lives.

I think it is an important thing to do, it’s just how we get it so it becomes a more of an embedded culture rather than something that's done as a silo element of it. (Employers group participant)

But yeah, it comes down to this money on both sides as well to be able to actually embed this properly and make it meaningful as well, and not just like you say, have it be a piece of paper that somebody can read and pick. (Employers group participant)

The potential advantages of establishing a new standalone Welsh employer scheme or a devolved element within a broader national scheme were discussed.

Participants who were employers suggested a forum of leaders could be set up in Wales. Any forum could potentially include DPO’s and trade unions to ensure collaborative working and stakeholder engagement.

It was acknowledged that more work needed to be done in Wales to get more employers to Level 3: Leader Status. Some participants reflected concern that so few employers have reached this level within the current scheme to date.

Unfortunately, at the moment there’s only just over 30 leaders in Wales. So you haven't got that many people that are at a level to step up. So, I think we need to do a lot of work with businesses public and private sector within Wales to get more people up to leader level. (Trade union group participant)

Some participants reflected potential challenges of a Wales only scheme if it were not part of a wider UK scheme (which will be discussed in the next chapter). However, participants saw valid reasons why a standalone scheme or a local dimension within a national scheme might be beneficial.

One of the advantages highlighted was the Welsh Language and ensuring this is treated with equal status. For those disabled people who identify as first language Welsh speaking, this would potentially remove an additional barrier.

And also, it's because we have our own language different to the UK Government. You know it's that side of things that have to be looked at for me. So that that doesn't become a barrier for a disabled person who lives in Northwest Wales. You know who's first language is Welsh and that's what they communicate through. We need to reach out to those people as well. (Trade union group participant)

It was reflected that regional patterns of employment and deprivation in Wales are distinctive from the rest of the UK and recognising these local differences was important.

It was also reflected by some participants that having a bespoke Welsh element offered a potential role for public procurement in Wales. For example, using public procurement as leverage to engage and encourage more employers to demonstrate good practice in supporting disabled people when bidding for public sector contracts.

Some disabled people and DPO’s felt that levels of trust with Welsh Government were higher than that with the UK Government. Some participants reflected they had less confidence in attitudes towards disabled people at a UK level and felt that the opportunity to ‘rebuild’ something specifically in Wales, may ensure more positive attitudes towards disabled people in the future. It was felt that a bespoke Welsh scheme may allow for wider engagement and co-production with disabled people and DPO’s.

As discussed in the above chapter, having a bespoke Welsh element would provide an opportunity for a cultural shift. Discussions around this shift focused on working collaboratively and taking a bottom-up approach with lived experience at its heart.

And on any future schemes, being Welsh specific, or looking at what's happening in the changes at Westminster. I think we still go towards creating something that's Welsh specific. So that, you know this is an opportunity really to reform something from the ground-up and co-productively work with disabled people, opposed to like changing a system which is quite big fundamentally. (DPO group participant)

The potential challenges of having a new standalone Welsh employer scheme or a devolved element within a broader national scheme were also discussed.

The main challenge identified was how a Welsh specific scheme would align with organisations working at a UK level. There was some perception from participants that this may cause confusion and present some practical issues to consider.

I think I'd like to see a functioning UK scheme, as I'm sure we would and there are some issues with a Wales only scheme besides the cost, there's also, organisations and businesses that operate pan UK. (Trade union group participant)

Some participants reflected that in devolved sectors such as health or education, Welsh Government could have more of an influence as opposed to non-devolved areas such as the police which could be a challenge in terms of scheme delivery.

Participants reflected on whether a Welsh specific scheme would divert resources away from the current Disability Confident Employer Scheme and ‘dilute’ available capacity. A new scheme would require dedicated funding and capacity on an ongoing basis to fund and manage the scheme. The opinion of some participants was that it would be more effective to concentrate resources centrally and enhance what was already in place.

Whether we should have something separate in Wales, and I would still hold with no, I think we need to enhance what already exists. (Employers group participant)

An additional challenge that was discussed was whether stakeholders had the required capacity to get involved and support either a standalone Welsh employer scheme or a devolved element within a national scheme. Whilst it was recognised that it is a positive idea for DPO’s to be more directly involved, concerns were raised regarding how this could be realistically be achieved given the status of current capacity across many DPO’s in Wales.

But yes very, very limited capacity to carry out evaluation activities of the sort that's been described. Yes, you know, if we had capacity, that would be a potential income stream. (DPO group participant)

This was similarly reflected by some participants representing trade unions. It was acknowledged trade unions have little involvement in the current scheme. And despite reflections positively acknowledging that trade unions can (and should) have a role in the future, capacity was also highlighted as an issue to consider.

It was felt that if collaboration and co-production with stakeholders were to be achieved in either a Welsh specific scheme or a devolved element of a national scheme, capacity building and investment would be needed amongst DPO’s and trade unions.

Focus group discussions highlighted employment problems experienced by disabled people that a scheme would need to address.

It was highlighted by participants that disabled people are often likely to be in low paid, insecure jobs that do not always accommodate flexible or home working.

Sector differences can have an impact on disabled people as some employers are doing ‘better than others’ in being able to effectively support disabled people in employment.

We've got care and leisure and other like affiliated services, sales and customer services and elementary occupations, and then admin occupations. So, some of those are the lowest paid jobs of all, and you'll see disabled people taking up more jobs in those sectors. So, I think this is a sector problem as well. And that those occupations are really, really underpaid. And those are the only ones that seem to be making any sort of adjustments for disabled people. (Trade union group participant)

Disabled people who are freelancers or are on a zero-hour contract may face additional barriers as they cannot always access trade union membership. It was reflected that trade unions cannot always represent this group of employees effectively.

Trade union participants highlighted they often try to reinforce the link between health and safety representatives and equality representatives. Trade union equality representatives have a role to play as they have statutory leverage which can be used to negotiate with employers and ensure reasonable adjustments are in place for disabled members. However, it was recognised that these roles could be better defined and having enough facility time is often lacking.

Most of our workplaces are small and our reps, you know, don't have the capacity and facility time. Sometimes the agreement is that it's not allocated to individual reps, it's shared across the entire committee or workplace branch. And then you're negotiating with your other reps in terms of how much time you can secure. (Trade union group participant)

Certain trade unions are collecting data on disabled people in poorly paid jobs and insecure work. However, it was highlighted that data currently being collected does not broadly consider intersectional disadvantage. For example, consideration of other protected characteristics.

So, contract types is really important when you look at this as well. So, you know, a big part of our work is around, you know eliminating zero-hour contracts and trying to get everyone on a proper contract. But you know that when you look at how that breaks down into intersections, you'll see that disabled workers, and particularly disabled Black, Asian and minority ethnic workers are doubly discriminated or even triply discriminated against. (Trade union group participant)

It was reflected that the UK Government had proposed disability gap reporting, and this signals a positive step forward. However, this relies on individual self-disclosure to an employer which can be problematic.

Participants from DPO’s and IG’s reflected that some people may not identify as disabled due to potential preconceptions from others.

Sometimes they're too worried to say that they're disabled or seek reasonable adjustments, because they're embarrassed about the nature of their symptoms, and they fear having to disclose and discuss them with an employer, which, I'm afraid to say does actually happen more often than you might think, and it can be incredibly intrusive and triggering. (DPO group participant)

Additionally, some disabled people may not be aware of their rights under The Equality Act (2010) and that they are eligible for support from their employer.

This presents a challenge for the employer to fully understand their workforce and ensure standards are being met fully to support disabled employees.

So, really difficult one for me because we operate in terms of the social model of disability and the social model is that your environment is the thing that disables you more than you as a person. So, it's really difficult to say disabled people should identify themselves. (Employers group participant)

The above quote illustrates the complexity of this issue, people may not wish to self-identify as disabled due to potential stigma and stereotyping associated. Additionally, the question was raised about whether, under the social model of disability, individuals should be required to self-identify. However, participants also reflected that this potentially leads to the employer and trade unions to not fully understanding the workforce they are meant to be supporting. In turn, disabled people are potentially not getting the appropriate support they are eligible for.

Participants reflected there is a need for greater public awareness of barriers for disabled people so employers can create a safe working environment to encourage disclosure.

Trade union participants also reported problems of ableism in the workplace. This concept may be poorly understood by some employers.

We've had loads of examples where we've been asked to call in reps because there is, you know, a lot of workplaces are ableist by their definition. (Trade union group participant)

Finally, workplace size is noted as having a differential impact and may restrict resources that can be committed to disabled people.

But yes, and I mean again, it's like we found with the project that most of the employers, when we look at it, percentage wise were SMEs. They weren't public sector. Public sector tended to be the employees for the supported internship programs, but other than that, they were so hard to get into even having those supported employment agencies and job coaches involved. It was really difficult, because they constantly put barriers up, and you've kind of like got to get to the right person that can make the decision. And we still often find, you know, that it's all health and safety. It's a health and safety issue. Of course it's not. There's still much work to be done. Still, so much. (DPO group participant)

This research set out to prototype coproduction of GSR and co-producers worked together from project scoping, planning and data collection through to analysis, theming and developing the narrative structure and content of this report. Reports were written and quality assured by Welsh Government social researchers and offered to all coproducers for sense-checking. The extent to which the coproduction aims were achieved will be the subject of separate evaluation. 

The co-production team included DRTF Working Group Chairs, Welsh Government social researchers, Welsh Government policy officials and a PhD student. 

The findings from the three focus groups with employers, trade union representatives, DPO and IG representatives have been presented in this report. It should be acknowledged this is a limited piece of research which did not aim to fully evaluate the current scheme, rather to further explore the options presented in the original DRTF working group recommendation. This exploration was undertaken with a range of stakeholders including those with lived experience of being disabled by barriers. However, the sample is not fully representative of all disabled people or types of employers, and it did not include the views of the UK Government department who are responsible for hosting the current scheme. 

The current Disability Confident Employer Scheme aims to ‘get more disabled people into employment and reduce the employment gap between disabled and non-disabled people’ and ‘support employers to make the most of the talents disabled people can bring to the workplace’. 

The research findings suggest improvements and increased engagement with people with lived experience are needed for the current scheme to better deliver these aims. 

Participants reflected that disabled people are often more likely to be in low paid, insecure jobs that do not always accommodate flexible working. Some disabled people are further disadvantaged by the sector or contract they are employed under. Freelancers and disabled people on a zero-hour contract cannot always access trade union membership. 

Participants also shared reflections that some people do not wish to identify as disabled due to stereotypes and potential negative preconceptions from others. Additionally, some disabled people may not be fully aware of their rights and responsibilities under The Equality Act (2010). This lack of understanding particularly around reasonable adjustments was considered a challenge for employers to fully understand their workforce and make these available if required. 

Safe working environments where disabled people feel able to self-identify was considered to be essential. It was reflected that there were proposals for a requirement for disability pay gap reporting, which was seen as a positive step forward. However, it was noted that this would only be aimed at large scale employers and would rely on self-reporting which could be problematic.

There are three levels within the existing scheme that employers can achieve. Many participants agreed that the Level 3 leader status was valuable because achieving it required external assessment by another organisation that had already gained Level 3 status within the scheme. Many participants raised problems experienced with the current scheme, particularly at the lower levels. 

The concept of an interview guarantee for disabled candidates when applying for jobs was seen as an advantage. Although some participants had experience of this not being honoured. 

Participants reflected that displaying the Disability Confident scheme logo on job adverts could be advantageous to disabled people if it indicated certain minimum employment expectations would be met. However, whilst there was some confidence amongst participants that Level 3 employers might meet this expectation, there was less confidence in the lower-level employers. 

Participants across the focus groups reflected that the lower levels of the current Disability Confident Employer Scheme were not considered challenging enough and represent a minimum standard. 

The lower levels were seen to not provide enough support and guidance for employers. It was thought that this leads to some employers not fully understanding what it is they have signed up to deliver. Participants felt there was a lack of understanding amongst employers of the barriers that disabled people face in the workplace and of the scheme itself. 

Research participants reflected this ‘minimum standard’ potentially gives a false sense of security to employers and disabled people seeking employment. 

DPO representatives reflected that some employers do not always have a clear understanding of the barriers faced by disabled people in the labour market and may think recruitment practices are fully accessible, however this is not always the case. 

The lower levels of the current scheme were not considered robust enough as employers are required to self-assess at these levels and there is no external monitoring, evaluation or accreditation. 

The current scheme was described by many participants as ‘a tick box exercise’ and ‘not fit for purpose’ and compared unfavourably with other employer schemes. Other comparable schemes for people with different protected characteristics, for example LGBTQ+ specific schemes, were viewed as more effective, challenging and robust. It was also reflected that people with lived experience were typically involved in the establishment, management and evaluation of these schemes. 

It was reflected that there is a lack of emphasis on engaging with people with lived experience to seek feedback regarding how well the scheme was currently working for them. This was seen as essential as disabled people are the assumed beneficiaries. 

Employers that participated in the research highlighted their desire for continuous learning and improvement. Some employers reflected the current scheme guidance focused on actions they had already taken. 

Participants reflected that funding and support given to employers was sometimes variable. Some employers provided examples of good support from the DWP in some geographic areas, whilst others reported accessing support more difficult. 

Some participants highlighted ‘horrid’ experiences in employment that disabled people had faced historically. The lack of follow up for employers who are part of the scheme means that some are not currently held accountable which can lead to repeat bad experiences for disabled people in the workforce. 

Focus group participants shared suggestions on how to improve the current scheme. These included:

• increasing resource such as staff, funding and capacity to address the problems identified by the research and ensuring any improvements were sustained and meaningful
• one example proposed was DPOs be allocated additional resources to work more directly with employers to provide advice and guidance
• robust monitoring of progress against agreed and measurable benchmarks at all levels to increase confidence and to demonstrate improved outcomes for disabled people in the workforce
• independent evaluation where people with lived experience could potentially play a role given they are the assumed beneficiaries of the scheme
• it was suggested that DPO’s could potentially form an advisory board with Welsh Government and build on the work of the Disability Champions to undertake evaluation activity
• increased opportunities for shared learning amongst stakeholders
• increased engagement at a regional level between DPO’s, third sector organisations, employers and trade unions

One of the fundamental principles of any improvement identified was engaging with disabled people with lived experience. Employers need to understand fully what the barriers are for disabled people, and what good practice looks like. It was deemed to be necessary for the current scheme to set higher aspirations for change across all levels. 

Trade Union representatives reflected they would like greater involvement in a future scheme. Their network of workplace union representatives was considered a potential source of support and education for both employers and disabled people.

Current legislation was seen as a structural obstacle. It was reflected by trade union participants that legislation often focuses more on individual disability discrimination cases as opposed to addressing barriers across sectors. Participants shared ambitions for stakeholders to be working together in the future to collectively identify solutions. Participants across the focus groups reflected there was a need for a stronger reporting procedure to ensure employer accountability and integrity. 

Participants reflected on the role of the DWP, given that the current scheme ownership resides with them. It was deemed that trust and relationships would need to improve to allow for collaboration to make improvements. However, participants raised that if effective collaboration between the DWP and stakeholders is not possible, alternative hosting arrangements for the scheme could be a better option. 

It was suggested that Welsh Government could potentially play more of an active role in either a future scheme or a revised scheme. This potentially would enable local networks of stakeholders to work collaboratively. This led to further debate regarding the potential advantages and challenges of a bespoke Welsh employer scheme. 

Evidence from the research suggests mixed support for a new Welsh scheme or a devolved element within a UK-wide scheme. This could form part of any devolved responsibilities to ensure the scheme takes account of regional needs and allows for greater community involvement. Consideration was given to both potential advantages and challenges associated with this. 

One potential advantage of devolving some or all of the Disability Confident scheme to Wales raised by focus group participants, included establishing a specific forum of leaders in Wales. It was deemed that this forum could have the benefit of raising aspiration and provide leaders with a local network to challenge each other and share good practice. It was suggested that this could include working collaboratively with DPO’s, IG’s and trade unions.

There was recognition that a Welsh dimension to an employer’s scheme could better integrate Welsh speakers and promote the use of the Welsh language. A scheme that took account of a Welsh specific dimension could potentially better understand the regional patterns of employment as well as economic barriers faced by disabled people. 

Some participants highlighted concern that few employers in Wales had achieved Level 3 leader status to date. Localised support was therefore seen as a potential way to increase the numbers of employers in Wales in both the private and public sector achieving leader status. 

Some disabled people and DPOs felt that levels of trust with Welsh Government were higher than that with the UK Government. It was also considered that having a bespoke Welsh element could provide a new opportunity for a ‘cultural shift’. It was reflected by one participant that this would offer the opportunity to reform from the ground up and work co-productively with disabled people. 

It was suggested this could incorporate a complete re-brand of the scheme that was not aligned to the DWP to ensure greater confidence and trust in the scheme. 

It was suggested that a bespoke Welsh element could potentially align to the public procurement process in Wales which might be used as leverage to engage more employers. For example, a minimum quality standard could be set to ensure any employers bidding for public sector contracts would have to demonstrate in practice. 

The potential challenges that were highlighted included practical issues such as funding and capacity. Participants raised that greater investment would be needed in Wales to enhance stakeholder capacity particularly for DPO’s and IGs. 

It was also suggested that having a bespoke Welsh scheme sitting alongside a UK national employer scheme might cause some confusion, particularly for employers that operate across the UK. 

Some participants questioned how feasible this was to deliver in real terms. Some participants felt that efforts could be better spent trying to improve or build upon the existing scheme as opposed to potentially diverting resources away from it. 

Overall, participants felt there were clear opportunities and potential advantages of a bespoke Welsh scheme, and alternatively there was also strong support for increasing available resources and making improvements to the current scheme as opposed to developing something new. 

The current Disability Confident Employer Scheme was launched in November 2016 by the DWP to replace the ‘two ticks’ scheme (DWP). 

The scheme aims to ‘get more disabled people into employment and reduce the employment gap between disabled and non-disabled people’ and ‘support employers to make the most of the talents disabled people can bring to the workplace’. It is stated that ‘being Disability Confident is an opportunity for employers to lead the way in their community and to discover skills and talents they cannot do without’. The scheme is voluntary and access to the guidance, self-assessments and resources is free. 

The scheme has three levels which employers are encouraged to move through: Level 1 ‘Committed’, Level 2 ‘Employer’ and Level 3 ‘Leader’ as set out below (DWP).

Level 1: Committed 

At this level, employers sign up to the scheme via GOV.UK where an employer agrees in principle to five Disability Confident commitments and to carrying out at least one activity from a list of nine that will make a difference to disabled people (DWP).

The five commitments are:

1. ensure your recruitment process is inclusive and accessible
2. communicate and promote vacancies
3. offer an interview to disabled people
4. anticipate and provide reasonable adjustments as required
5. support any existing employee who acquires a disability or long-term health condition, enabling them to stay in work 

The nine activities are:

1. work experience
2. work trials
3. paid employment (permanent or fixed term)
4. apprenticeships
5. job shadowing opportunities
6. traineeships
7. paid internships and supported internships
8. student placements
9. sector-based work academy placements 

Level 2: Employer

Employers at this level complete an action focused self-assessment covering two themes and agree to take on the ‘core actions’ and at least one ‘activity’ specified by the DWP against each theme. Employers must complete Level 1 before progressing to this level. The two themes are: 

1. getting the right people for your business
2. keeping and developing your people

At Levels 1 and 2 resources and guidance are available to demonstrate how the core actions and activities under each theme can be implemented effectively by an employer (DWP).

Level 3: Leader 

To achieve this level, there are 3 additional steps that an employer needs to take (DWP). These include:

1. challenge: employers are required to have their self-assessment validated by a third party to ensure the employer delivering against the core actions and are employing disabled people
2. leadership: employers must provide a narrative of activities taken or are taking in support of being a Disability Confident Leader
3. reporting on disability, mental health and well-being: employers must use the Voluntary Reporting Framework to report on actions undertaken

The co-production team produced an overall vision for the research project, the coproduction approach and the evaluation. Co-production was agreed as ‘an approach to working together in equal partnership for equal benefit’ and a range of principles to aid working together amongst team members were agreed. 

The shared ambitions were to learn how to produce GSR research together, where the learning would be used to improve the quality and use of evidence to inform decisions affecting disabled people in the future. It was a prototyping experiment to test the limits to which a GSR report could be coproduced. The extent to which ambitions were achieved will be the topic of a separate evaluation report and are not included in this report.

The team combined lived experience of being disabled by barriers with expertise in disability rights and social research (both academic and Government) and brought together DRTF Working Group Chairs and Welsh Government officers:

• the Chairs represented a wealth of lived experience of being disabled by barriers, knowledge and expertise (including academic expertise in employment inequalities and disability) and had chaired DRTF Working Groups covering the topics of Employment and Income, Independent Living and Health, Independent Living and Social Care, Housing, Access to Services, Access to Justice and Travel
• a PhD Student who was associated with the DRTF Employment and Income Working Group Chair and independently researching the same topic also joined the team
• the DRTF Policy lead who maintained connections between research projects and the Disabled People’s Rights Plan
• a minimum of three Welsh Government social researchers were dedicated to the co-production team throughout, including some with lived experience of being disabled by barriers
• a Principal Researcher supported co-production throughout and had responsibility for the final evaluation
• the Head of the Equality, Race and Disability Evidence Units had oversight from project inception and was fully involved in the co-production from the point the research focus had been agreed

The aim of the research was to iteratively co-produce primary evidence and use it to explore the DRTF Working Group recommendation, through involving:

• the co-production team and its initial scoping discussions
• representatives of Disabled people (including DPO’s and IG’s)
• representatives of employers
• Welsh Government policy officers
• representatives of trades unions

The co-production team set out to work as co-productively as possible to scope, co-design and co-plan the research, develop research tools and to co-analyse the data. Welsh Government researchers drafted the reports and quality assured these to GSR standards before being offered for review by the co-production team. 

The extent to which decisions were co-produced varied at different stages of the project. Some decisions were reserved by Welsh Government where it had responsibilities to uphold. For example, statutory data protection responsibilities or professional GSR standards such as ethical responsibilities relating to confidentiality of findings before publication. 

Co-production is an iterative process. The co-production involved two pieces of research and decisions taken about the fieldwork design impacted on resources available to adequately deliver on other research objectives. This is explained in more detail in the methodology section and will be explored further through the project evaluation. The evaluation will consider to what extent the research was coproduced across the different stages of the two research prototype projects.

Working together as a team of experts by experience and academic or Government social researchers (some were both) added to the quality of the research, for example:

• knowledge about the research topic was pooled and the research built upon knowledge accrued in the DRTF Working Group and the PhD Student’s independent research
• the lens of lived experience was applied to development of the research tools, co-facilitation of focus groups and analysis of focus group data
• assumptions about disabled people were challenged and opportunities to do things differently were highlighted
• research and reports were co-designed in attempting to deliver in line with the principles of the social model of disability
• joint efforts made to select and recruit participants in focus groups

Report author: Equality, Race and Disability Evidence Units

Views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and not necessarily those of the Welsh Government.

For further information please contact:
Equality, Race and Disability Evidence Units
Knowledge and Analytical Services
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ

Email: EqualityEvidenceUnit@gov.wales

Social research number: 57/2025
Digital ISBN: 978-1-83715-748-8